Verplanck fireboat injury appeal
A former volunteer firefighter challenged a summary judgment rejecting his maritime injury claims against the Verplanck Fire District.
In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of Verplanck Fire District
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 23-1218
The verified ruling
April 30, 2026
Historical decision; current case status is not established.
Why it matters
The district serves the hamlet of Verplanck; the ruling restored two possible routes for a former firefighter to seek damages without deciding liability.
What the court decided
The appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded the unseaworthiness and general maritime negligence issues for further proceedings. The Jones Act denial was not appealed.
What remains unresolved
Whether Dyckman met the Sieracki work-and-hazards requirements, whether disputed evidence should be believed, ultimate liability and damages were not resolved by this ruling. Later case developments are unverified.
Read our full report →On the record
Events described in the linked official opinion. Background and court actions are identified in each entry.
- Recorded in the opinion
Fireboat response and injury
The opinion describes Dyckman’s injury aboard Marine I while responding to a reported boat fire on the Hudson River.
Why it matters: The injury led to the claims addressed in the appeal.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
State lawsuit filed
The opinion says Dyckman filed suit against the district in Westchester County Supreme Court.
Why it matters: The state suit preceded the district’s federal limitation proceeding.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Federal limitation proceeding begun
The district filed the federal petition seeking to limit its liability.
Why it matters: Dyckman asserted his injury claims in that proceeding.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Appeal argued
The Second Circuit heard argument in the appeal.
Why it matters: Argument preceded the historical appellate ruling.
Official source ↗ - Recorded in the opinion
Judgment vacated; case remanded
The Second Circuit vacated the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Why it matters: The ruling reopened the two appealed maritime issues without awarding damages.
Official source ↗
What comes next
A later original court order or docket would be needed to establish post-remand developments. No later court date or outcome is verified here.
No upcoming court date is verified in this case guide.
Sources & scope
- This report concerns the April 30, 2026 appellate opinion only; it does not establish later case developments or the present court calendar.
- The complete retained source is a 68-page GovInfo PDF, Document 73 in case 23-1218. It prints no separate reporter citation; that profile field is left empty.
- The underlying pleadings, full docket and post-remand orders have not been independently obtained.
- The opinion vacated summary judgment and remanded; it did not award damages or resolve ultimate negligence, unseaworthiness or Sieracki eligibility.